According to Gayle Rubin in "Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality," sexuality is the primary agent for the repression of western society. It is through the outlet of sex by which the state governs and rules its people. To exemplify, she utilizes Michael Foucault’s philosophy in the belief that sex is institutionalize not according to biological needs, but the social norms that have been created throughout history. For example, the early use of sexual repression on young children. Early on, techniques were used on young girls to eliminate any form of sexual desire. Moreover, she introduces the “charmed circle” in order to explain the normal vs. deviant. The normal being on the left side which embodies anyone who identifies as heterosexual, married, monogamous, procreative, non-commercial, in pairs, in a relationship, same generation, in private, no pornography, bodies only, and vanilla. On the right hand you have all those outside of the margins which include: homosexual, unmarried, promiscuous, non-procreative, commercial, alone or in groups, casual etc. Altogether, she points to this divide between the ‘good’ and the ‘bad,’ which separates society and in turn creates a caste system that values some more than others. Nonetheless, she suggests that we rethink a feminist politics of sexuality.
In contrast, Cathy Cohen in "Punks, Bulldaggers and Welfare Queen," is more concerned with the multiple systems of oppression. She states that sexuality is not the main sector for the oppression of people because, as she says, "being heterosexual isn’t enough" to grant you all the benefits of society (442). Although, she agrees that heterosexual privilege negatively impacts and constrains the lived experiences of "queers," so too does racism, classism and sexism. This is due to the multiple systems of oppression that operate to limit the entitlement of rights and status. In explaining, she critiques queers politics as they have failed to address the much more deep-rooted dilemma---systemic domination. As she mentions, there are also versions of domination and normalization being replicated and employed by non-privileged group members. For example, although heterosexuals have more privilege than white “queers,” white “queers” may be more privileged when put into context with black “queers.” Meaning, not all people encounter the same experiences because each system of oppression overlaps to deny or approve the rights of individuals. Furthermore, we also have the “welfare queens” that although fit into the category of heterosexual, are no perceived as normal, worthy of state support (442). Then so, she questions who really fits into this category of normativity. In this case, most of us don’t. For that reason, she suggests that we take a turn from “assimilation” politics and instead aim towards a movement building rooted on the share marginal relationship between people. In sharing experiences of oppression, people can form coalitions that build indigenous resources, shape consciousness and ultimately act collectively.